Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 4 votes

Charges pressed against Bernie Ecclestone [merged]


  • Please log in to reply
867 replies to this topic

#251 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 07 August 2013 - 16:52

Frankly very few here thought this would run at all, however Gribkowsky's rightly serving 9-years and Ecclestones been indicted. So difficult to see where the confidence of Ecclestone 'getting away with it' emanates from, and should he be found guilty it's inconceivable he'd not find himself joining Gribkowsky, an outcome that would be entirely deserved.

And while it's easy to think of what he's supposed to have done as victimless, we all know there's no such thing....Ecclestone's no Robin Hood, best remembered he (allegedly) steals to buy his kids $100m homes, not to fund the children's cancer wards in Indian hospitals...


Its just a feeling. I can't back it up.

Fine - I hope he doesn't end up spending the rest of his life in prison.

Advertisement

#252 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 August 2013 - 18:32

Frankly very few here thought this would run at all, however Gribkowsky's rightly serving 9-years and Ecclestones been indicted. So difficult to see where the confidence of Ecclestone 'getting away with it' emanates from, and should he be found guilty it's inconceivable he'd not find himself joining Gribkowsky, an outcome that would be entirely deserved.

And while it's easy to think of what he's supposed to have done as victimless, we all know there's no such thing....Ecclestone's no Robin Hood, best remembered he (allegedly) steals to buy his kids $100m homes, not to fund the children's cancer wards in Indian hospitals...


Not so sure myself. I may be wrong, but I think BE probably has more money than Gribkowsky and it's funny how that seems to make a difference in so many cases.

#253 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,582 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 07 August 2013 - 20:04

Not so sure myself. I may be wrong, but I think BE probably has more money than Gribkowsky and it's funny how that seems to make a difference in so many cases.


I don't get this cynical view of the world. Money can buy you a good legal team, but unless you're talking about bribing judges or juries, it can't keep you out of jail. This isn't 1920s America.

#254 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 829 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 August 2013 - 12:31

I don't get this cynical view of the world. Money can buy you a good legal team, but unless you're talking about bribing judges or juries, it can't keep you out of jail. This isn't 1920s America.

No bribing anyone - just using asking your powerful friends to have a quick word with their influential friends (you do me a favour and I'll be there for you when you need me sort of thing)

#255 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 08 August 2013 - 14:10

Not so sure myself. I may be wrong, but I think BE probably has more money than Gribkowsky and it's funny how that seems to make a difference in so many cases.


What can one say but, yes.

Plus of course this is not a criminal action. Sweeteners and backhanders are the norm in business everywhere. The big difference with Gribkowsky is that he was a public servant.

I still have lots of questions about this. One being that the amount of money Constantin Media is claiming is 'relatively peanuts' and BE or CVC/or both could easily have settled outside court for less some time ago. Would have saved a lot of hassle for Bernie and possibly disclosures of this kind.

Next you have to ask, 'who benefits'. The main beneficiary of the mooted 'undervalued shareholding' was CVC. Did they have no idea whether they were getting a good deal or not? Unlikely, one might suspect.

As far as I can remember, the Gribkowsky trial judge made much of Ecclestone's machinations in selling to CVC as the means to protect his own power base in F1. The undervaluation issue was never satisfactorily addressed or quantified. However, this could be a very large number, if proven.

I am reminded of a post in a much earlier thread on this by JJCale, who reasonably asked whether Constantin Medien's case was being brought as a 'stalking horse'. The biggest loser in all this must be the (now) Kirch estate. And if undervaluation is proven, Kirch has a considerable claim against both BE and the Bayern Bank . . . for lack of due diligence. I think the Americans are also bringing their case equally against Bayern LB and CVC.

This whole thing could backfire against the Germans . . . maybe explaining why the Munich prosecutor has been so reluctant to pursue the charges against Bernie?

Oh what a tangled web, as they say.










#256 Juggles

Juggles
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 08 August 2013 - 15:23

Frankly very few here thought this would run at all, however Gribkowsky's rightly serving 9-years and Ecclestones been indicted. So difficult to see where the confidence of Ecclestone 'getting away with it' emanates from, and should he be found guilty it's inconceivable he'd not find himself joining Gribkowsky, an outcome that would be entirely deserved.

And while it's easy to think of what he's supposed to have done as victimless, we all know there's no such thing....Ecclestone's no Robin Hood, best remembered he (allegedly) steals to buy his kids $100m homes, not to fund the children's cancer wards in Indian hospitals...


I agree. I don't see why having a witty set of one liners should keep you out of prison.

#257 kimifan88

kimifan88
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 08 August 2013 - 18:52

This really goes over my head. I was reading something about the background a few days ago and it said that Ecclestone didnt pay all the money to the banged-up banker. Apparently half of it (or something like that) came from his trust fund so has the trust fund been charged as well as Ecclestone? How do you charge a trust fund? Isnt it just a bank account (or lots of them)? Who will be the man in court if it has been charged and if it hasnt then why not? :stoned:

#258 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,477 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 08 August 2013 - 22:45

This really goes over my head. I was reading something about the background a few days ago and it said that Ecclestone didnt pay all the money to the banged-up banker. Apparently half of it (or something like that) came from his trust fund so has the trust fund been charged as well as Ecclestone? How do you charge a trust fund? Isnt it just a bank account (or lots of them)? Who will be the man in court if it has been charged and if it hasnt then why not? :stoned:

Yes, it might well have gone over your head. What is the source of that story BTW?

For a start, from what I know it started not about Bernie paying Gribkowsky but Gribkowsky paying Bernie and, simultaniously, Bernie's Bambino fund ;)

Apart from that, it would be funny if trust funds couldn't be charged simply because there's no front guy - OK, some operate like they think they won't.......



#259 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 275 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 08 August 2013 - 23:29

I'm not sure that deliberately under valuing an asset is legally the same thing as a payment? The net effect in a deal might be the same but in UK law?? The charge being considered against Bernie is for making a payment to a public official to determine an outcome. Sin can probably explain this better.

Bernie's very keen to always state that the Bambino Trust does everything and not him. It would be interesting to know who are the Trustees and what the purpose of the Trust is (for the children is not enough).

The Trustees can be held accountable for their actions which would include any payments made.

Seano



Advertisement

#260 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 09 August 2013 - 21:03

Yes, it might well have gone over your head. What is the source of that story BTW?

For a start, from what I know it started not about Bernie paying Gribkowsky but Gribkowsky paying Bernie and, simultaniously, Bernie's Bambino fund ;)

Apart from that, it would be funny if trust funds couldn't be charged simply because there's no front guy - OK, some operate like they think they won't.......


Trust's are administered by Trustee's (the 'front guy' as you put it) who are responsible for the independent (in this case of Ecclestone) administration of the said trust fund.

But if Ecclestone instructed the trustee to make payments to Gribkowsky that would mean he still exercised control of the fund and that status would be rescinded as would it's beneficial tax status requiring repayment of the tax concessions claimed.

None of which actually matters from the Munich prosecutors perspective seeing as Ecclestone now freely admits being responsible for paying Gribkowsky. Whilst earlier in the investigation he vehemently denied making any payments to the BayernLB banker, he lied.

Later, once the Munich investigators traced the transfers back to Ecclestone, he came up with the admission he had paid Gribkowsky and the subtle blackmail/ shakedown story. He quite rightly can't bank on that cock and bull story and all the indications are he'll rely on the claim Gribkowsky lied earlier in the case and is an unreliable witness, ironic or what.

#261 kimifan88

kimifan88
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 10 August 2013 - 01:32

Yes, it might well have gone over your head. What is the source of that story BTW?

For a start, from what I know it started not about Bernie paying Gribkowsky but Gribkowsky paying Bernie and, simultaniously, Bernie's Bambino fund ;)

Apart from that, it would be funny if trust funds couldn't be charged simply because there's no front guy - OK, some operate like they think they won't.......


It is very simplistic. Ecclestone and the Bambino Trust paid $44 Million to Gribkowski. Ecclestone says that the payment of $44 Million was because of blackmail. The German authority says that the payment of $44 Million was a bribe to get Gribkowski to sell F1 to CVC. Here is some evidence:

http://www.independe...se-8714030.html
'Gribkowsky claimed that the payment was a bribe from Mr Ecclestone and his family trust Bambino Holdings to ensure that the bank’s 47 per cent stake in Formula One would go to CVC – a UK-based buyout firm – under a deal which ensured that Mr Ecclestone would remain Formula One boss.'

Ecclestone was recently charged with paying a bribe but Bambino has not (at least there is no evidence it has been charged). Why not? Who would be charged? Is it the trustee? What if he/she says they had no idea?

#262 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 August 2013 - 08:31

A trust doesn't have a legal personality, per se. It's a device for holding assets. The trustees are the legal owners and as they are the ones who deal with the assets they are the ones who would be on the hook.

#263 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 275 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 10 August 2013 - 08:55

HMRC aren't doing their job too effectively - UK Plc is in need of the dosh.

Its pretty clear that Bernie has been controlling Bambino directly all along. Why have they not moved in and grabbed the cash that this bogus Trust has accumulated through falsely claimed tax concessions.

Generally an individual has to prove that they have done nothing wrong, rather than HMRC prove that they have and possession is 9/10's of the law and we know Bernie is terrified of them.

If they don't get a move on, it will all end up in the US and Germany with people whose paws aren't squeaky clean either.

Seano

#264 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 August 2013 - 14:41

A trust doesn't have a legal personality, per se. It's a device for holding assets. The trustees are the legal owners and as they are the ones who deal with the assets they are the ones who would be on the hook.


Trustee's aren't the 'legal owners' they simply manage the Trust Fund on behalf of the beneficiaries and are paid a fee for doing so. And on the Trust issue, let me be as clear as I can be, the Trustee's are culpable should there be reason to apportion blame with how the Trust was being managed. That would include criminal responsibility were they to indulge in say money-laundering.

Ecclestone on the other hand, as the one who set up the trust (settlor) can revoke it should he wish providing it's either stated in the trusts articles or by court order if not. Putting the cash back into his savings account should he wish. But what he cannot do is have any direct or indirect influence or control over the Trust while it's in place.

On which point, don't suppose anyone thought the timing of Stephen Mullens departure as Ecclestone's long time legal eagle a couple of years ago was in any way significant?....

#265 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 August 2013 - 22:06

Trustee's aren't the 'legal owners' they simply manage the Trust Fund on behalf of the beneficiaries and are paid a fee for doing so.

If the trust is set up under English law, which I understand it is, then the trustees are the legal owners. It doesn't mean they have all the powers of a legal owner, because the beneficial interest belongs to the trust beneficiaries.

But assume the trust owns shares. If the trustees want to sell them and buy a house, it's the trustees who have to sign all the papers; it's the trustees who are on the Companies House record as the owners, it's the trustees who will go on the Land Registry forms as the owners. The other parties in the transaction may never know there is a trust.

If the trustees steal the share proceeds, though, the beneficiaries can sue for breach of trust.

Ecclestone on the other hand, as the one who set up the trust (settlor) can revoke it should he wish providing it's either stated in the trusts articles or by court order if not.

Realistically, only if he has the power in the trust - and even that will have tax consequences.

The Court is the ultimate trustee. It will act for the beneficiaries' best interests in all cases. And that will not include giving it all back to the chap who gave it away in the first place. The Court will only revoke in narrow circumstances, such as the settlor was defrauded into giving his stuff away, and those conditions will not apply here.

#266 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 1,092 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 11 August 2013 - 04:34

Is there a possibility that if Bernie and co must give up her share of F1 to allow the FIA to buy the stake?

#267 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 11 August 2013 - 05:34

Is there a possibility that if Bernie and co must give up her share of F1 to allow the FIA to buy the stake?



I don't think it will be the FIA but Dietrich Mateschitz

#268 superdelphinus

superdelphinus
  • Member

  • 1,338 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 11 August 2013 - 08:51

It looks like a post from a law student

#269 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,602 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 11 August 2013 - 09:32

Maybe not. Law students numerate...

A Trustee 1) manages the trust; 2) pilfers the holdings; 3) lies to the beneficiaries; 4) gets caught up in derivative actions; and 5) goes to jail.



#270 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 20 September 2013 - 15:44

I see changes at the Munich Prosecutors along with more time for new submissions to be made by Ecclestone's lawyers are delaying any decision on when/if the indictment will proceed to trial....seems the delaying tactics have begun.


Edited by TriumphST, 20 September 2013 - 19:04.


#271 alpinesmuggler

alpinesmuggler
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 19 October 2013 - 10:50

I haven't heard much about his case since August. Google doesn't seem to be of much help. Any of you knowledgeable F1 insiders know what the latest developments are, if any?

 

141020825KR00091_F1_Grand_P.jpg

 

Bernie and his golden ticket.



#272 SebnandoKimilton

SebnandoKimilton
  • Member

  • 71 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 19 October 2013 - 10:52

He has been given more time to prepare his arguments so the case has been delayed for now.

 

We will hear more about it next year, but for the moment nothing much is happening. 

 

http://sports.ndtv.c...ecclestone-case



#273 alpinesmuggler

alpinesmuggler
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 19 October 2013 - 11:09

He has been given more time to prepare his arguments so the case has been delayed for now.

 

We will hear more about it next year, but for the moment nothing much is happening. 

 

http://sports.ndtv.c...ecclestone-case

Cheers. For me, that's the story of the year. Bernie is, for better or for worse, F1. His removal would, I hope, shake things up a bit.


Edited by alpinesmuggler, 19 October 2013 - 11:11.


#274 RosannaG

RosannaG
  • Member

  • 705 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 19 October 2013 - 11:53

More news about Mr. Ecclestone's problems with the justice...  :well:

 

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2iASW2Jk0



#275 Wanderer

Wanderer
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 19 October 2013 - 11:55

z1381564414.jpg
 



#276 alpinesmuggler

alpinesmuggler
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 19 October 2013 - 17:34

More news about Mr. Ecclestone's problems with the justice...  :well:

 

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2iASW2Jk0

Interesting. Civil court proceedings going ahead, criminal court proceedings delayed for the off-season.

 

Should be a fascinating "silly season."


Edited by alpinesmuggler, 19 October 2013 - 17:34.


#277 MustangSally

MustangSally
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 19 October 2013 - 18:43

Interesting. Civil court proceedings going ahead, criminal court proceedings delayed for the off-season.
 
Should be a fascinating "silly season."


I'm not sure now that criminal proceedings will ever be brought against BE.

The problem is, that it invites more cases against Bayern LB, who could only be proven to be complicit in the alleged undervaluation. (If such a verdict were reached.)

In terms of the immense cost of proceedings, plus possible compensation from Bayern . . . it could be lose lose for the German taxpayer.

Note that BE has seemed already to outwit/outlegal the $650m claimants Bluewaters . . . whose suit was also against Bayern LB. He has done the Germans a favour there. (To be honest, Bluewaters seemed like a bunch of chancers.)

Constantin Medien is another story. They have a reasonable case even without the disputed bribery, although the final figure is open to opinion. I think Bernie might settle out of court there, on a 'without prejudice' basis. Neither Bernie nor his cohorts are very credible under cross-examination, and I think getting all this out of the way for 100m would be a good deal for him.

#278 kimifan88

kimifan88
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 19 October 2013 - 21:31

Saw this a few weeks ago and it made me smile. His old mate Mosley comes to the rescue yet again and just like the old days its a left field stunner. I cant see this case ever getting to court at this rate and I guess thats why its all gone quiet.
http://www.telegraph...-F1-battle.html



#279 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 28 October 2013 - 12:53

He has been given more time to prepare his arguments so the case has been delayed for now.

 

We will hear more about it next year, but for the moment nothing much is happening. 

 

http://sports.ndtv.c...ecclestone-case

 

 

Be that as it may, the word is (courtesy of Joe Saward) that Ecclestone has made his submissions and is in front of Judge Peter Noll next week the 6th November for a hearing which may purport to fast track the trial....for this year. While it may be to exeronate Ecclestone I doubt it. 

 

Of course tomorrow the 29th Oct. Justice Vos in the UK High Court opens the case between Ecclestone, Mullens et al and Constanin Medien, busy times ahead....



Advertisement

#280 metz

metz
  • Member

  • 9,722 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 28 October 2013 - 14:18

 I cant see this case ever getting to court at this rate and I guess thats why its all gone quiet.
 

It has just gone quiet till the new judges are in place next year.

There is too much money involved and thus will not be settled until some of it is re-distributed.



#281 kimifan88

kimifan88
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 28 October 2013 - 15:02

I read that Gribowsky has paid his money back to the bank. I dont see anyone else saying that Eclestonne is going to court in Germany soon so am not sure if that is correct. I still can not imagine a court case for criminal charges about this after the claims of Max Mosley

http://www.telegraph...-F1-battle.html



#282 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 28 October 2013 - 18:16

I read that Gribowsky has paid his money back to the bank. I dont see anyone else saying that Eclestonne is going to court in Germany soon so am not sure if that is correct. I still can not imagine a court case for criminal charges about this after the claims of Max Mosley

http://www.telegraph...-F1-battle.html

 

Certainly BayernLB (I think) had sequestered those assets they could very early on, although I understood the Austrian charity/trust element was problematic at the time.  

 

But when you're dependent on the largess of the judicial system to transfer you to an 'open prison' and look kindly on your day-release parole applications when due (some of which as I understand they have), you'll need to show more then 'exemplary behaviour'.

 

So restitution would be a good place to start and I suspect he's co-operating on that score, and should that process include a little retribution on the one you're blaming for the mess you're in, all the better. So when you've lost everything as Gribkowsky has, I'm sure he won't be satisfied unless Ecclestone's losses impact to a similar degree. There again he may be the forgiving sort.



#283 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,282 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 28 October 2013 - 22:01

Certainly BayernLB (I think) had sequestered those assets they could very early on, although I understood the Austrian charity/trust element was problematic at the time.  

 

But when you're dependent on the largess of the judicial system to transfer you to an 'open prison' and look kindly on your day-release parole applications when due (some of which as I understand they have), you'll need to show more then 'exemplary behaviour'.

 

So restitution would be a good place to start and I suspect he's co-operating on that score, and should that process include a little retribution on the one you're blaming for the mess you're in, all the better. So when you've lost everything as Gribkowsky has, I'm sure he won't be satisfied unless Ecclestone's losses impact to a similar degree. There again he may be the forgiving sort.

 

He's not going to be in prison for ever, you know - and he's not a young man anymore... He might just want a comfortable retirement after all this is done.



#284 alpinesmuggler

alpinesmuggler
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:57

Certainly BayernLB (I think) had sequestered those assets they could very early on, although I understood the Austrian charity/trust element was problematic at the time.  

 

But when you're dependent on the largess of the judicial system to transfer you to an 'open prison' and look kindly on your day-release parole applications when due (some of which as I understand they have), you'll need to show more then 'exemplary behaviour'.

 

So restitution would be a good place to start and I suspect he's co-operating on that score, and should that process include a little retribution on the one you're blaming for the mess you're in, all the better. So when you've lost everything as Gribkowsky has, I'm sure he won't be satisfied unless Ecclestone's losses impact to a similar degree. There again he may be the forgiving sort.

Interesting article; IANAL, but that criminal case isn't going anywhere. I don't think Bernie cares a lot about his already shady reputation, so paying a few M quid here or there, and being allowed to retire in peace is a viable option for him. The guy can barely string two coherent sentences nowadays, and at 82, what else does he have to prove? He looks more and more like a Hugh Heffner-type character.

 

That said, I wish this story was more thoroughly covered by Autosport. It's a bit confusing as of now. If Bernie has to "resign" or whatever the term, who's going to take over? What is the legal structure going to be? Can we, as fans, expect any improvement, or is it going to be the same old?

 

Oh, btw, Mosley out. I thought we'd dealt with this a while ago. Why this guy still has a public pulpit is beyond me.


Edited by alpinesmuggler, 29 October 2013 - 09:00.


#285 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 29 October 2013 - 10:10

He's not going to be in prison for ever, you know - and he's not a young man anymore... He might just want a comfortable retirement after all this is done.

 

 

Maybe not, but neither youth nor dotage ought to deny justice being served and the law is the law both here and in Munich. Anyway he may come clean as Gribkowsky has and save the German judicial system the odd euro.

 

But what he doesn't deserve is a comfortable retirement and if this pans out as expected he'll probably be up to his neck in litigation till the F1 commercial rights lease expires.

 

You know the Constantin Medien High Court case kicks off today and begins the process... 



#286 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 29 October 2013 - 13:18

Interesting article; IANAL, but that criminal case isn't going anywhere. I don't think Bernie cares a lot about his already shady reputation, so paying a few M quid here or there, and being allowed to retire in peace is a viable option for him. The guy can barely string two coherent sentences nowadays, and at 82, what else does he have to prove? He looks more and more like a Hugh Heffner-type character.

 

That said, I wish this story was more thoroughly covered by Autosport. It's a bit confusing as of now. If Bernie has to "resign" or whatever the term, who's going to take over? What is the legal structure going to be? Can we, as fans, expect any improvement, or is it going to be the same old?

 

Oh, btw, Mosley out. I thought we'd dealt with this a while ago. Why this guy still has a public pulpit is beyond me.

 

In order,

 

I think your wrong, Ecclestone will be very concerned about the bribery charge not only because of the possibility of incarceration, but as in the UK case (but more so), it will open flood gates of litigation being launched.

 

Ecclestone fears losing everything and is cognisant of the Ron Dennis description of F1 as the piranha pool. But, he's not fighting like a Goldfinger or Midas to keep everything, he's fighting for survival. He's aware that as soon as one brick in the ediface cracks everything he's worked for over 50 years will dissappear in a moment....

 

"What does he have to prove?"....Realistically that he's not guilty and with the evidence, that's going to be an herculean task.

 

"I wish the story was more thoroughly covered by Autosport" ...Understandably no-one going to bite the feeding hand, but should he have to go, the stories will appear.

 

"who's going to take over?" ....Myth that BE's indispensable may have an enormous turnover/profit but it probable doesn't qualify as a SME, you could probably do it.

 

"the same old?"....Yes I'm afraid, not been a sport for years and the mould has long been cast, profit is now what matters.

 

"Why this guy got a public pulpit" Well Ecclestone and Mosley have been a double act since they hijacked the FIA and the Commercial Rights. Mosley owe's Ecclestone.

 

 

If you've not read 'The Guile of Max Moseley' the link I believe was posted earlier in the thread but here it is again, worth reading...

 

http://web.archive.o....com/mosley.htm


Edited by TriumphST, 29 October 2013 - 13:19.


#287 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,616 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 October 2013 - 13:18

Are they queuing up now ?

 

"Swiss launch criminal probe into F1 bribery scandal"


"The investigation by Swiss prosecutors was triggered by the receipt of third party complaint. It will attempt to establish the facts of the case, whether it falls under Swiss jurisdiction and whether the payment was criminal under Swiss law. No charges have been laid."

 

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2j7I92x9F


Edited by swerved, 29 October 2013 - 13:20.


#288 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 29 October 2013 - 14:05

The Swiss police aren't much of a threat.  How much criminality did they find in FIFA or the UCI?  Or their army in the Vatican?



#289 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 29 October 2013 - 20:27

The Swiss police aren't much of a threat.  How much criminality did they find in FIFA or the UCI?  Or their army in the Vatican?

All it needs is the one chink. Anyway how do we know it's not HMRC who initiated the inquiry? Now that would be worrying for Mr E.



#290 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,616 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 29 October 2013 - 20:45

The Swiss police aren't much of a threat.  How much criminality did they find in FIFA or the UCI?  Or their army in the Vatican?

 

You've obviously never broken a speed limit in Switzerland!  :lol:

 

But i take your point, although one might wonder just who the 3rd party is.



#291 kimifan88

kimifan88
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 30 October 2013 - 01:19

 

I think your wrong, Ecclestone will be very concerned about the bribery charge not only because of the possibility of incarceration, but as in the UK case (but more so), it will open flood gates of litigation being launched.

 

 

Nice article about Mosly. Have you read this link to statements from him? If this is true then I can not imagine Ecclestone will ever appear in a German court for bribes and I can not imagine that he is concerned at all.

http://www.telegraph...-F1-battle.html



#292 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 30 October 2013 - 20:00

 

 

I think your wrong, Ecclestone will be very concerned about the bribery charge not only because of the possibility of incarceration, but as in the UK case (but more so), it will open flood gates of litigation being launched.

 

 

Nice article about Mosly. Have you read this link to statements from him? If this is true then I can not imagine Ecclestone will ever appear in a German court for bribes and I can not imagine that he is concerned at all.

http://www.telegraph...n-F1-battle.htm

 

Mosley is Ecclestone's man bought and paid for years ago, anything he said would have been part of Ecclestone's PR campaign.

 

Whether Ecclestone has to travel to Munich or not won't be influenced by anything Mosley has to say, nor will he under any circumstances appear under oath on Ecclestone's behalf. Now I'm not a betting man but I'd put good money on Ecclestone standing trial at least.



#293 kimifan88

kimifan88
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 31 October 2013 - 02:27

Mosley is Ecclestone's man bought and paid for years ago, anything he said would have been part of Ecclestone's PR campaign.

 

 

 

You are assuming that it is not true. I said IF it is true then I can not imagine Ecclestone will ever be seen in court in Germany for bribes. I am standing by that. Take a look close at Mosley's words and the consequences of them IF they are true. It makes it really impossible for there to be a bribe



#294 TriumphST

TriumphST
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 31 October 2013 - 13:17

You are assuming that it is not true. I said IF it is true then I can not imagine Ecclestone will ever be seen in court in Germany for bribes. I am standing by that. Take a look close at Mosley's words and the consequences of them IF they are true. It makes it really impossible for there to be a bribe

 

I said it was immaterial, it was the usual article with the usual agenda written by Christian Sylt (BE's proxy), interviewing Max Mosley (BE's effective partner of 25-years) in sycophantic support of BE, so why expect objectivity?

 

My view is a little different for the following reason's.  

 

Moseley says the FIA has a veto (but realistically that measure if exercised would be immediately challenged in whatever context it was used). However the supposedly intention was to safeguard the FIA against an operating company bringing the FIA into disrepute.

 

It has no remit to interfere with the lawful management of personnel or any other part of the Commercial Rights  operating company. Rights disposed of for a fraction of what they were worth back in 2000. But could it somehow be extended to include interference with an independent companies management policy, Well no it couldn't, to try would be laughable. 

 

Now it seem, according to Sylt, an Aug 2005 veto 'agreement'  held by Bambino (one could ask with whom?) safeguarding Ecclestone's position exists. Well when Ecclestone opens the terms of the Bambino trust SLEC holdings, so we don't have to take his word for it, then we'll know the facts.

I know he'll (Sylt) understand the raison d'etre. 

 

Even if the Aug 2005 veto agreement was signed and exists (presumably with CVC), isn't the inference that Ecclestone was in fact controlling Bambino in direct contravention of the HMRC taxation requirement and in this case benefiting from that connection. That if true would be very serious for Ecclestone.

 

But in essence this case (and the next) is about one guy doing 9-years after coming clean and the other saying I didn't bribe anyone, but it was so subtle threat I paid him $44m anyway.  Exactly what the inducements were for Ecclestone we'll probably never be party to, however I think we can be reasonably sure it wasn't fear of blackmail.

 

And as always we can all have our own opinion but I'd be wary of setting much store by what Messrs Mosley and Sylt have to say given what you've read about him.


Edited by TriumphST, 31 October 2013 - 13:22.


#295 kimifan88

kimifan88
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 31 October 2013 - 21:59

I said it was immaterial, it was the usual article with the usual agenda written by Christian Sylt (BE's proxy), interviewing Max Mosley (BE's effective partner of 25-years) in sycophantic support of BE, so why expect objectivity?

 

My view is a little different for the following reason's.  

 

Moseley says the FIA has a veto (but realistically that measure if exercised would be immediately challenged in whatever context it was used). However the supposedly intention was to safeguard the FIA against an operating company bringing the FIA into disrepute.

 

It has no remit to interfere with the lawful management of personnel or any other part of the Commercial Rights  operating company. Rights disposed of for a fraction of what they were worth back in 2000. But could it somehow be extended to include interference with an independent companies management policy, Well no it couldn't, to try would be laughable. 

 

Now it seem, according to Sylt, an Aug 2005 veto 'agreement'  held by Bambino (one could ask with whom?) safeguarding Ecclestone's position exists. Well when Ecclestone opens the terms of the Bambino trust SLEC holdings, so we don't have to take his word for it, then we'll know the facts.

I know he'll (Sylt) understand the raison d'etre. 

 

Even if the Aug 2005 veto agreement was signed and exists (presumably with CVC), isn't the inference that Ecclestone was in fact controlling Bambino in direct contravention of the HMRC taxation requirement and in this case benefiting from that connection. That if true would be very serious for Ecclestone.

 

But in essence this case (and the next) is about one guy doing 9-years after coming clean and the other saying I didn't bribe anyone, but it was so subtle threat I paid him $44m anyway.  Exactly what the inducements were for Ecclestone we'll probably never be party to, however I think we can be reasonably sure it wasn't fear of blackmail.

 

And as always we can all have our own opinion but I'd be wary of setting much store by what Messrs Mosley and Sylt have to say given what you've read about him.

 

My golden rule is to go by the quality of the media outlet and this theory has proved me very well so far in careers of marketing and sports science. Spending time with the good friend Google shows that Sylt writes for the most reliable and credible papers in the UK (the FT, the Wall Streets Journal, Independent, Guardian, Telegraph) since 2005. It shows he is also a regular guest on the BBC and CNN, again credit due to Google. But he is also a writer for the what I call tablod rags like Express and Mail.

This presents a paradox to me as I know of no other writer who has coverage in quality medias and rags. Even more strange is that many of these are rivals. The Express and Mail and the Telegraph and Guardian are examples. At the first I thought I had made a mistake when I saw links to articles of Sylt in so many rival newspapers and I made checks by searching for his name in the search service on the newspaper websites directly. It came as a great shock and if you want to see the prove then click on the links below from the search result. If you told me that there was someone who writes regularly for the Express AND the Mail as well as Independent AND Telegraph I would not believe it before seeing it for myself.

http://www.telegraph...n Sylt"&Search=
http://www.guardian..../christian-sylt
http://www.cityam.co.../christian-sylt
http://www.thisismon...=Christian Sylt
http://www.express.c...ch/Sylt/?s=Sylt

I do not understand how it is possible for one person to do this and my only thinking is that the informations are specialist so rivals have to take it. That still does not explain why someone would even want to write for rags as well as the Wall Street, the FT, Telegraph, Guardian etc. I just do not understand.

In the case of the Mosley comments I have no doubt that the details are solid as the news was in the Telegraph which in my opinion is the most upstanding newspaper in England. It has not been tarnished with any scandal and blew the roof on the politicians expenses. I do not believe that a newspaper like that will allow articles to be printed without making major checks on background of the content. Especially as my search showed that Syltt has written for the Telegraph for 2005 so he must be trusted by them.

It does not matter to me what the name is of the writer and I often will not even look. But I do look at the name of the paper as I am giving my money to it! These newapapers have hundreds of thousands of readers and I can guess that many of them will also not be looking at the name of a writer. They are looking at the writing!

In the Telegraph it says that Mosley could stop the buyer of F1 if Ecclestone was not accepted as the boss so why would Ecclestone need to pay a bribe to stay?



#296 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,616 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 November 2013 - 12:09

Interesting twitter from Dan Roan on the Ecclestone case.

 

 

 

    1. Laughter in court as Ecclestone explains why he paid Gribkowsky after a subtle "insinuation" the German would report him to tax authorities

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/danroan



#297 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,582 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 06 November 2013 - 12:31

Very awkward arrival at court today:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/24831606

 

(UK only)



#298 swerved

swerved
  • Member

  • 3,616 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 November 2013 - 12:36

Very awkward arrival at court today:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/24831606

 

(UK only)

 

:lol:  Have you read some of his answers, sounds like he's doing a stand-up routine.



#299 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 10,920 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 06 November 2013 - 14:05

I think he meant to do it. Seemed to say something to the photographers and called them something or other. I think he was suggesting they should go cover another story or something. Can't quite grasp what he said.



Advertisement

#300 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,306 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 06 November 2013 - 14:21

I do not understand how it is possible for one person to do this and my only thinking is that the informations are specialist so rivals have to take it. That still does not explain why someone would even want to write for rags as well as the Wall Street, the FT, Telegraph, Guardian etc. I just do not understand.
 

 

He's freelance, a lot of writers flit between papers of differing political and social spectra.